, Volume 98, Issue 7, pp 625–629 | Cite as

No evidence of volatile chemicals regulating reproduction in a multiple queen ant

  • Duncan J. Coston
  • Richard J. Gill
  • Robert L. HammondEmail author
Short Communication


Efficient cooperation in eusocial insect colonies requires effective communication, and there is abundant evidence of non-volatile chemicals playing a role in regulating reproduction within colonies. In contrast, there have been fewer studies investigating the role of volatile chemicals. This study investigated the potential role of volatile chemicals in regulating queen reproduction either by directly inhibiting queen reproduction or by honestly signalling queen fecundity to workers. We tested this using multiple queen colonies of the ant (Leptothorax acervorum) from a functionally monogynous population where one queen monopolizes all reproduction. Nine colonies, each with an established laying queen, were split to produce two colony fragments—one containing the reproducing queen (group 1) and one containing only previously non-reproducing queens (group 2). Each group was separated by a fine wire mesh preventing physical contact, but allowing volatile chemical contact. In each group 2 fragment, we found that a single formerly non-reproductive queen commenced reproduction and that the rate of egg laying and maximum number of eggs recorded did not significantly differ between groups 1 and 2, results that do not support volatile chemicals as playing a role in regulating queen reproduction. Instead, our findings suggest that physical contact is necessary to maintain functional monogyny.


Communication Conflict Cooperation Functional monogyny Leptothorax acervorum Signalling Reproductive skew Worker 



DJC would like to thank Mike Orchard for help throughout this study; special thanks to D.W. and J. Coston for providing funding for DJC’s MSc. All authors would like to thank three referees for their helpful comments. RJG and RLH would like to thank NERC, Royal Society, and the University of Hull for funding.


  1. Bourke AFG (1991) Queen behaviour, reproduction and egg cannibalism in multiple-queen colonies of the ant Leptothorax acervorum. Anim Behav 42:295–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourke AFG (1993) Lack of experimental evidence for pheromonal inhibition of reproduction among queens in the ant Leptothorax acervorum. Anim Behav 45:501–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourke AFG (1995) Further evidence of lack of pheromonal inhibition among queens of the ant Leptothorax acervorum. Ethology 101:46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourke AFG, Franks NR (1995) Social evolution in ants. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. d’Ettorre P, Heinze J (2005) Individual recognition in ant queens. Curr Biol 15(23):2170–2174. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.10.067 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. d’Ettorre P, Moore AJ (2008) Chemical communication and the coordination of social interactions in insects. In: d’Ettorre P, Hughes DP (eds) Sociobiology of communication: an interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Felke M, Buschinger A (1999) Social organisation, reproductive behavior and ecology of Leptothorax acervorum (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) from the Sierra de Albarracin in central Spain. Insect Soc 46:84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fletcher DJ, Ross KG (1985) Regulation of reproduction in eusocial Hymenoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 30:319–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gill RJ, Hammond RL (2011a) Workers determine queen inheritance of reproduction in a functionally monogynous ant population. Anim Behav. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.04.006
  10. Gill RJ, Hammond RL (2011b) Workers influence royal reproduction. Proc R Soc Lond B 278:1524–1531. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gill RJ, Arce A, Keller L, Hammond RL (2009) Polymorphic social organization in an ant. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:4423–4431. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hammond RL, Bruford MW, Bourke AFG (2006) A test of reproductive skew models in a field population of a multiple-queen ant. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61(2):265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heinze J, d’Ettorre P (2009) Honest and dishonest communication in social Hymenoptera. J Exp Biol 212(12):1775–1779. doi: 10.1242/jeb.015008 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heinze J, Lipski N (1990) Fighting and usurpation in colonies of the Paleartic ant Leptotorax gredleri. Naturwissenschaften 77(10):493–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heinze J, Lipski N, Hölldobler B (1992) Reproductive competition in colonies of the ant Leptothorax gredleri. Ethology 90(4):265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holldobler B, Carlin NF (1985) Colony founding, queen dominance and oligogyny in the Australian mean ant Iridomyrmex purpureus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 18(1):45–58Google Scholar
  17. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. Holman L, Jorgensen CG, Nielsen J, d’Ettorre P (2010) Identification of an ant queen pheromone regulating worker sterility. Proc R Soc B 277(1701):3793–3800. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0984 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howard RW, Blomquist GJ (2005) Ecological, behavioral, and biochemical aspects of insect hydrocarbons. Annu Rev Entomol 50:371–393. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130359 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keller L (1995) Social life: the paradox of multiple-queen colonies. Trends Ecol Evol 10:355–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keller L, Reeve HK (1999) Dynamics of conflicts within insect societies. In: Keller L (ed) Levels of selection in evolution (Monographs in Behavior and Ecology). Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 153–175Google Scholar
  22. Le Conte Y, Hefetz A (2008) Primer pheromones in social Hymenoptera. Annu Rev Entomol 53:523–542. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091434 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maisonnasse A, Lenoir JC, Beslay D, Crauser D, Le Conte Y (2010) E-β-ocimene, a volatile brood pheromone involved in social regulation in the honey bee colony (Apis mellifera). PLoS One 5(10):e13531. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013531 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Matsuura K, Himuro C, Yokoi T, Yamamoto Y, Vargo EL, Keller L (2010) Identification of a pheromone regulating caste differentiation in termites. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(29):12963–12968. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1004675107 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Monnin T (2006) Chemical recognition of reproductive status in social insects. Ann Zool Fenn 43(5–6):515–530Google Scholar
  26. Nehring V, Evison SEF, Santorelli LA, d’Ettorre P, Hughes WOH (2011) Kin-informative recognition cues in ants. Proc R Soc Lond B. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2295
  27. Oster G, Eshel I, Cohen D (1977) Worker–queen conflict and evolution of social insects. Theor Popul Biol 12(1):49–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ratnieks FLW, Foster KR, Wenseleers T (2006) Conflict resolution in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol 51:581–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sumana A, Deshpande SA, Bhadra A, Gadagkar R (2008) Workers of the primitively eusocial wasp Ropalidia marginata do not perceive their queen across a wire mesh partition. J Ethol 26(2):207–212. doi: 10.1007/s10164-007-0049-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vander Meer RK, Alonso LE (2002) Queen primer pheromone affects conspecific fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) aggression. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51(2):122–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yamauchi K, Ishida Y, Hashim R, Heinze J (2007) Queen–queen competition and reproductive skew in a Cardiocondyla ant. Insect Soc 54(3):268–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Duncan J. Coston
    • 1
    • 3
  • Richard J. Gill
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Robert L. Hammond
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of HullHullUK
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  3. 3.School of Agriculture, Policy and DevelopmentUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  4. 4.School of Biological SciencesRoyal Holloway University of LondonEghamUK

Personalised recommendations